Am Montag, 17. April 2017 um 20:31:07, schrieb Tommaso Cucinotta <[email protected]> > On 17/04/2017 12:50, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Montag, 17. April 2017 um 12:39:26, schrieb Kornel Benko <[email protected]> > >>> Perhaps the issue is just that we terminate LyX with "kill -9" in > >>> keytest.py [1]. Would you please try replacing that "-9" with "-SIGQUIT" > >>> or similar, and see what happens ? (after rolling back the \Ax, which, > >>> from what I'm suspecting, are just adding some extra time before the kill > >>> -- probably I had this issue as well, because that "sleep(0.5)" I'm > >>> seeing below is also equally suspicious :-), but who remembers... > >> > >> Now lyx never ends > >> I have to do it manually (File->Esci) > > > > And the test fails because the cursor position is now saved and used in > > next session. > > (Previously it was not saved becase of kill -9) > > so, tests reusing the same .lyx file should all begin with a \C[Home], as you > never know when such cur pos might be saved ... > > Btw, instead of ending each test with \Ax, what about ending them with \Cq ? > (shortcut for File->Quit) ?
Or \Axlyx-quit\[Return], this is language independent. OTOH, maybe we have to wait before sending it. I tried, and lyx often missed some keystrokes ... The problem here is that the buffer may be dirty. E.g. you get a dialog for save, discard, or abort. And what if lyx is in an endless loop? (Should not be, but who knows) > But, the current keytest.py expects LyX to be found running on TestEnd, or it > fails, so an explicit \Cq in the -in.txt file would not work. > Instead, what about replacing the kill -9 with an attempt of clean exit ? > e.g., see the attachment. Nice, but we should wait some seconds before using kill -9 the first time > Thanks, > > T. Your patch works good for this test.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
